O.T.: Win2k installer vs. BIOS HDD barries - what you think?

BIOS update, EIDE card, or overlay software? (FAQ Hard disk recognition)
Post Reply
Bruno
New visitors - please read the rules.
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:09 pm
Location: E.S. state, Brazil

--Notice: I written this topic after readed the above topic:
http://www.wimsbios.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=16520
Before you read this topic I suggest you check the topic of prior link; even both are not the same thing, some interessing information on the prior link are aplicable on this one (that you are reading now).
-----

Hey folks, read this real story (even if can appear as not):

Some weeks ago, a technican guy showed me how to go above 8.4 GB simply with Windows 2000 installer using the Windows 2000 CD-ROM. He configure the BIOS SETUP manually entering Cyl. ~39500 (a thing that I don't like), Hds. 16, Sec. 63. The mainboard (from I remember) was a ZIDA Tomato 6MLX, using AMI HiFlex Setup dated from 1998 middle's (+/- May month), and the HD a 20GB one.
BIOS displayed ~20000 MB at post summary on Primary Master IDE; Fdisk still displayed as 8.4 GB. At this time, he deleted any existent partition with the knew Fdisk thing, leaving the HDD as blank\unformated. After all that, he entered the Windows 2000 Proffessional CD-ROM and start a install from zero. When it gone on HDD partitioning, the guy choosen to create FAT32 Primary Parttion with all 20GB size, leave installer do the job, and after it created and formated (no DOS Format used, nor Fdisk) he canceled the instaler. Then, he entered a Win98SE CD-ROM and done a Windows 98SE install and configured the system, and blablabla the usual things (Dial up config, e-mails acount, Defrag C:, ... leaving to config things as newest video drive, DMA transfers enabling, Mentest86 before O.S. install, etc.).
Well, ending this posting, I could not saw the Defrag and ScanDisk tests (just the funny part, on that all story, IIRC) but after that was done the system was still running (how good? I unknown), not displayed BSOD's and could reboot.


Any oppinions?
(sorry english erros; I do not know much of english)
Bruno
New visitors - please read the rules.
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:09 pm
Location: E.S. state, Brazil

Ok, here are somethings to keep in mind:
·The BIOS was really not able to setup correctly the 20 GB HDD, just stucked with 8.4 GB. Even using Auto-detection at booting, BIOS Auto-selected values at SETUP, or manually entering Cyl. ~16383, Hds. 16, Sec. 63, both BIOS and Fdisk displayed 8.4GB. Entering ~39500 Cyl., I remember the BIOS displaying 20 GB (but not remember if displayed 20 GB at all boot process, up to O.S. boot) but Fdisk continued displaying 8.4GB. I Not the guy entering diferents Cyl. Hds. Sec. values; also not saw if he enabled or disabled the Capacity limitation jumper (I assumed he probably leaved it disabled);
·He say "did used it on others computers with similar situations, and get no problems" (not a exactly quoting, but mainly yes). As at this point I doubt he know the reasons for 8.4 GB, 32 GB and others capacity barries, I can't say if he could do the jobing when depared with Award 32 GB insue (assuming the system was not hang'ed at HardDisk Auto-detection or when loading manually entered settings; also, the capacity limitation jumper possibility);
·The mainboard BIOS display at BIOS SETUP the CHS values as high Cyl. and low Hds.; Award 4.51 BIOSes (the ones I could ever saw) usually displayed me low Cyl. and high Hds. values. I do not know if that does matter much, as LBA mode is normally enabled;
·Data integrity seems to been ok after all, but could be sayed as untested;
·The Windows 2000 Professional installer program seems to be basically (or fully) independent of BIOS IDE rotines for access the harddisk, even that possible the Win2k installer can read the configured values on BIOS SETUP and simply assumes that when accessing a HD at itself way.
Also, I do know that even the Win98SE is able to auto-detect a Haddisk when it was not detected on BIOS SETUP - of couse, if that is a second harddisk attached on system, not the HD from Win98SE is installed - atought it is somewhat not much tested (might do the job with Primary and Secondary IDEs, but not know if all time nor about Terciary IDE).

But, the mainly Question: are that safer? What you think about it?
Can it help with i430VX/FX based BIOSes, when BIOS after patching can fully recognize HDs up to 64GB (or 128GB) but when enter on Fdisk still had detected (by Fdisk itself) as 8.4GB??


Thank you,
Bruno.
edwin
The Hardware Archivist
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

But, the mainly Question: are that safer? What you think about it?
Can it help with i430VX/FX based BIOSes, when BIOS after patching can fully recognize HDs up to 64GB (or 128GB) but when enter on Fdisk still had detected (by Fdisk itself) as 8.4GB??
If so you need to use a proper version of fdisk, not a DOS 6.x one.
edwin/evasive

Do not assume anything

System error, strike any user to continue...
Rainbow
The UniFlasher
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:16 pm
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

If you create a partition that crosses 8.4GB boundary and your BIOS does not support HDDs over 8.4GB, it will not work.
You can add secondary HDD and set it to NONE in BIOS. Windows 95 and up should detect it and it will work - but often without DMA and other things (because BIOS will not configure the controller), it might be also unreadable in another PC.
Patched and tested BIOSes are at http://wims.rainbow-software.org
UniFlash - Flash anything anywhere
Post Reply